PLAYER57832 wrote:Contraceptive use is part of female medical care, as determined by the American Medical profession and the US Supreme Court. Denying somethign so fundamental to the health of one gender becuase you happen to dislike it is gender discrimination.

Using contraceptives to treat issues such as irregular periods is part of female medical care. Using it to avoid pregnancies is a personal choice that no other person should be forced to pay for.

So it's ok to make a personal choice to avoid irregular periods, but it's not ok to make a personal choice to avoid all periods?

Of course it's ok for people to make that personal choice. It's not ok to force me to pay for someone else to make that choice. The only contraceptives I'm responsible for paying for is those my family may or may not choose to use. It's not my job to work to pay for others to have contraceptives.

Night Strike wrote:Of course it's ok for people to make that personal choice. It's not ok to force me to pay for someone else to make that choice. The only contraceptives I'm responsible for paying for is those my family may or may not choose to use. It's not my job to work to pay for others to have contraceptives.

In the context of the conservative american framework, yes, this is perfectly fine.

However there are two opposing arguments here:- Firstly what if, by supplying free/mandated cover contraception resulted in a net finacial gain for the country that otherwise wouldnt be realised in the market, which meant the country could be run marginally more efficiently and thus increased everyones paychecks, lowered everyones costs, etc etc. At some point you make a scarifice in standard of living to maintain your pure "freedom". What point do you give in?- What if, through democratic process the above argument is sufficient such that the bulk of the population supports scarificing some personal freedoms for the global increase in standard of living?

Bear in mind these are thought experiments; it is impossible to know exactly what the return on investment for government supplied contraception would be. The liberal-left argument is that the investment is low cost and low risk but has a fairly large potential upside.

It takes 159 pages to explain a few new taxes in Obamacare. How many more pages will it take to explain how government-provided insurance will work? And how many work-hours will it take to understand AND COMPLY with all of them? And you all thought private insurance paperwork was too much to read. Welcome to government insurance!

(Reuters) - The Internal Revenue Service has released new rules for investment income taxes on capital gains and dividends earned by high-income individuals that passed Congress as part of the 2010 healthcare reform law.

The 3.8 percent surtax on investment income, meant to help pay for healthcare, goes into effect in 2013. It is the first surtax to be applied to capital gains and dividend income.

The tax affects only individuals with more than $200,000 in modified adjusted gross income (MAGI), and married couples filing jointly with more than $250,000 of MAGI.

The tax applies to a broad range of investment securities ranging from stocks and bonds to commodity securities and specialized derivatives.

The 159 pages of rules spell out when the tax applies to trusts and annuities, as well as to individual securities traders.

Released late on Friday, the new regulations include a 0.9 percent healthcare tax on wages for high-income individuals.

Both sets of rules will be published on Wednesday in the Federal Register.

The proposed rules are effective starting January 1. Before making the rules final, the IRS will take public comments and hold hearings in April.

Together, the two taxes are estimated to raise $317.7 billion over 10 years, according to a Joint Committee on Taxation analysis released in June.

To illustrate when the tax applies, the IRS offered an example of a taxpayer filing as a single individual who makes $180,000 in wage income plus $90,000 from investment income. The individual's modified adjusted gross income is $270,000.

The 3.8 percent tax applies to the $70,000, and the individual would pay $2,660 in surtaxes, the IRS said.

The IRS plans to release a new form for taxpayers to fill out for this tax when filing 2013 returns.

The new rules leave some questions unanswered, tax experts said. It was unclear how rental income will be treated under the new rules, said Michael Grace, managing director at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP law firm in Washington.

"The proposed regulations surely will increase tax compliance burdens for individuals," said Grace, a former IRS official. "There's clearly some drafting left to be done."

Phatscotty wrote:Loot: Do you really, honestly, understand American Conservatism? If yes, why or what have you studied or spent time on in the past concerning the topic?

Have I got it wildly wrong somewhere?

I quite happily accept when im wrong, i've done it many times on these boards. So please, help me out here rather than trying to bait me into showing my ignorance.

Here i'll start for you: "Loot you seem to think American Conservatism is ________; you my man are slightly wrong, here let me explain. Really american conservatism is all about ______"

ehhhhh, I'm not sure. It's possible. Had to officially ask. I have a good idea myself what kind of media you get over there, probably a lot like Britain? (insert Saxi comment)

well yeah we were having an awesome convo, and I brought in the Socialists, and everything went to hell.

I understand why American Conservatism is so misunderstood. Many Americans, even lots of Republicans, don't care to understand. The simple answer as to why: It is rarely ever actually practiced. There were a few glimpses, when a certain "terrorist wing" of the Republican House of Representatives aka the Tea Party teamed up with Democrats to block key provisions of the patriot act, to try to rally Democrats to help stop the drone bombing of American citizens, as well as pass a balanced budget (of course, even more terrorist) as well as make many changes on state and local levels that reflect actual Conservatism. Example: My state, Minnesota, the Tea Party swept the House and the Senate. We got a Democrat governor, but we balanced our budget nonetheless. We also recently got conceal-carry of firearms, and a few years before that we actually got tax rebate checks from our surpluses.

Another big part of the communication gap is a complete case of apples and oranges. Conservatives think they are right, and Liberals are wrong, and want to talk about why they are right or wrong. The Left thinks the Right is bad, and they are good, and there is no use dealing with something that is bad. It's just soooo bad.

Phatscotty wrote:Nope. I didn't say that because I don't use birth control...

Put simply, taxpayer dollars should not go to fund abortions or contraceptives

You still didn't get it. Please try and actually engage the other side.

Scotty, you'll never go to school again. Yet, you as a taxpayer are forced to fund the education of other children. Don't see you frothing at the mouth about that program. Or literally every other program, just because you don't agree to a war doesn't mean you can just deduct that from your tax. Programs doesn't have to directly affect you for it to be beneficial, and that's such a selfish, blinkered and narrow minded perspective.As Medefe and other repeatedly pointed out increasing the access to contraceptives is beneficial and cost-saving to the entire community.

This is as much about Victorian prudishness and attitude to sex as it is about perceived government spending.

So why, in 2012, are women suddenly unable to pay for their own contraceptives when they've been buying them for themselves for the nearly 100 years they've been around? Why must people buy their own contraceptives AND buy for others who refuse to buy their own?

By the way, national defense is actually a Constitutionally-defined role of the federal government. Where is providing/mandating contraceptives a Constitutionally-defined role?

It would go under the general welfare part I assume.

Also, it's because suddenly in 2012, a study has come out and shown that it's clearly more cost-efficient to subsidise the cost of contraceptives rather than the entire cost of a child's welfare. That cost, of educating and caring for a child would be pushed onto the state and it's more cost-efficient to subsidise contraceptives instead. For another fucking time, this is efficient budget-wise.

Phatscotty wrote:

Iliad wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Nope. I didn't say that because I don't use birth control...

Put simply, taxpayer dollars should not go to fund abortions or contraceptives

You still didn't get it. Please try and actually engage the other side.

I don't get my own point?

GET A CLUE!

I am well aware you can just repeat and listen to your own talking points to yourself days on end. This forum is clear evidence of that.

No you didn't get what he was trying to say, and it's really not a great surprise. Please try and read it again.

No scotty he repeated a pretty important point of his, a spoint you simply refuse to acknowledge. Even truthfully acknowledging that you don't understand. That's nice and honest from you. Since you're about as slow as a glacier, let me help you out with some helpful bolding.

jj3044 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

jj3044 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

jj3044 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:ummmmmmm, unemployment and medicare?

there is currently a battle over planned parent hood funding, as well as tax-payer subsidized contraceptives and abortions on demand.

What's wrong with "if you want it, then you go get it" Not like anyone is trying to tell another what to do or what not to do.....pretty simple

Yes... if you never use unemployment, should you pay for the "freeloaders"?

Same thought process with medicare, although I admit it is a weaker example as most people will be on medicare assuming they make it to the appropriate age.

My point is that there probably aren't ANY government-funded programs that at least one person couldn't go say "I'll never use that service, so I'm not paying that percentage of my taxes!".

So... where does it end?

I have no idea what you are talking about

The thesis of your main point is basically that if you don't use it, you don't want to have to pay for it. My point is that if you are complaining about paying for some programs that you don't/won't use, then you have to complain about EVERY program, including ones like unemployment and Medicare.

we're talking about the picture right? The point of the picture is the hypocrisy of those who say "keep your government out of my uterus" but then demand government intervention into their birth control and contraceptive use and abortions.

No, I'm talking about your main point:

Phatscotty wrote:pretty sure you have completely forgotten to factor in the entire premise......FORCING someone else to pay for your contraception or abortion, to be specific.

It's about how tax dollars are spent, it has nothing to do with your privacy.

And back to my point... I may never use unemployment, so why should I pay?

Get it?

Do you get it? He repeated himself 3 times. I had to repeat myself twice. Jsesus fucking Christ Scotty. A government program doesn't ahve to affect you directly. You may not go to school again, or have kids, but that doesn't mean you can just boycott spending on education programs. Please try and read it. Just any of it.

Phatscotty wrote:Nope. I didn't say that because I don't use birth control...

Put simply, taxpayer dollars should not go to fund abortions or contraceptives

You still didn't get it. Please try and actually engage the other side.

Scotty, you'll never go to school again. Yet, you as a taxpayer are forced to fund the education of other children. Don't see you frothing at the mouth about that program. Or literally every other program, just because you don't agree to a war doesn't mean you can just deduct that from your tax. Programs doesn't have to directly affect you for it to be beneficial, and that's such a selfish, blinkered and narrow minded perspective.As Medefe and other repeatedly pointed out increasing the access to contraceptives is beneficial and cost-saving to the entire community.

This is as much about Victorian prudishness and attitude to sex as it is about perceived government spending.

So why, in 2012, are women suddenly unable to pay for their own contraceptives when they've been buying them for themselves for the nearly 100 years they've been around? Why must people buy their own contraceptives AND buy for others who refuse to buy their own?

By the way, national defense is actually a Constitutionally-defined role of the federal government. Where is providing/mandating contraceptives a Constitutionally-defined role?

It would go under the general welfare part I assume.

Also, it's because suddenly in 2012, a study has come out and shown that it's clearly more cost-efficient to subsidise the cost of contraceptives rather than the entire cost of a child's welfare. That cost, of educating and caring for a child would be pushed onto the state and it's more cost-efficient to subsidise contraceptives instead. For another fucking time, this is efficient budget-wise.

That's specific welfare, not general welfare. And if contraceptives are so much better for a company's budget, they would choose to provide it without governmental mandates. These mandates are for the government to force their views on people who disagree with contraceptives and to earn votes through handouts from another constituency.

notyou2 wrote:Is it OK to force people to pay taxes for road improvements if they don't drive or have a car?

Is it OK to force people to pay taxes for schools if they don't have children?

Hospitals if they never get sick?

Military spending if they are pacifists?

The list goes on..........

The government doesn't have to provide any money for hospitals, but the others are roles of different levels of government based on either specific Constitutional provisions or providing for the general welfare of the country. They aren't specific handouts to certain people based on their sexual organs.

The government doesn't have to provide any money for hospitals, but the others are roles of different levels of government based on either specific Constitutional provisions or providing for the general welfare of the country. They aren't specific handouts to certain people based on their sexual organs.

This discussion of this being specific to women is a red herring, and I'm ashamed that liberals keep using it, because it's a terrible argument; it allows the conservative side to focus on something that is not the main issue. The argument for contraception is so much stronger than just the individual health of the woman, although it's obviously a relevant factor. Having access to contraception obviously affects men, too. No one needs to be afraid to say that they would like to plan their pregnancies to occur at a time that makes sense for them, and we should be encouraging proper family planning using contraception, rather than (admittedly, passively) encouraging couples to have babies that they can't support. This is a clear example of where collective support can lead to a better society, by allowing it to be easier for families to only bring children into the world when they can support them.

Metsfanmax wrote:rather than (admittedly, passively) encouraging couples to have babies that they can't support.

The government's encouragement of procreation is not a passive activity. There are direct tax subsidies for having children. While my income has increased, my tax burden has decreased substantially since we started having children.

Metsfanmax wrote:rather than (admittedly, passively) encouraging couples to have babies that they can't support.

The government's encouragement of procreation is not a passive activity. There are direct tax subsidies for having children. While my income has increased, my tax burden has decreased substantially since we started having children.

Aside to main topic: This is one of the double edged swords I cant figure out; how do you ensure ever kid has a decent start in life (i.e. they get to live in acceptable conditions, a safety net specifically for the kids, etc) without indirectly encouraging reproduction?

Metsfanmax wrote:rather than (admittedly, passively) encouraging couples to have babies that they can't support.

The government's encouragement of procreation is not a passive activity. There are direct tax subsidies for having children. While my income has increased, my tax burden has decreased substantially since we started having children.

Aside to main topic: This is one of the double edged swords I cant figure out; how do you ensure ever kid has a decent start in life (i.e. they get to live in acceptable conditions, a safety net specifically for the kids, etc) without indirectly encouraging reproduction?

That's a gigantic question for which you'll probably get a million different answers.

My basic argument is that the government has no business preparing children for having a decent start.

Metsfanmax wrote:rather than (admittedly, passively) encouraging couples to have babies that they can't support.

The government's encouragement of procreation is not a passive activity. There are direct tax subsidies for having children. While my income has increased, my tax burden has decreased substantially since we started having children.

Aside to main topic: This is one of the double edged swords I cant figure out; how do you ensure ever kid has a decent start in life (i.e. they get to live in acceptable conditions, a safety net specifically for the kids, etc) without indirectly encouraging reproduction?

to help kids have a decent awareness of how to make their way through life, i would prefer a more community based approach, rather than a large umbrella type method such as the federal govt. just assuming that one type of fix for a certain problem will fix every individual problem kind of sounds spooky to me. while you may bring the statistics down, you'll never fix the problem. i would be more agreeable to letting communities work their own way out of problems rather than forcing them to depend on a higher power that has no real knowledge of the person/people they are trying to help.

i would say ti's really impossible to ensure that every kid has a decent start in life. the people that are now having unwanted babies because they cannot afford birth control and have no desire to support them through childhood, would ( in my opinion ) be very unlikely to actually use birth control if given the opportunity. basically i really think they just don't care. it goes along with most other things too. the line between what is needed and what is wanted is getting very very gray. and i just can't help but think that program after program is just having funds shoveled in because we're too busy sitting on the couch eating taco bell watching dancing with the stars. when we should instead be eating a fresh meal from the family garden sitting at the table as a family.

Metsfanmax wrote:rather than (admittedly, passively) encouraging couples to have babies that they can't support.

The government's encouragement of procreation is not a passive activity. There are direct tax subsidies for having children. While my income has increased, my tax burden has decreased substantially since we started having children.

Sure, but the government's encouragement of procreation through the withholding of contraception is a passive activity, which is what I was actually talking about in my comment.

Metsfanmax wrote:rather than (admittedly, passively) encouraging couples to have babies that they can't support.

The government's encouragement of procreation is not a passive activity. There are direct tax subsidies for having children. While my income has increased, my tax burden has decreased substantially since we started having children.

Sure, but the government's encouragement of procreation through the withholding of contraception is a passive activity, which is what I was actually talking about in my comment.

thegreekdog wrote:That's a gigantic question for which you'll probably get a million different answers.

My basic argument is that the government has no business preparing children for having a decent start.

And my argument would be that a neutral body who is funded involuntarily such as a central government is the only entity capable of ensuring it happens. (please dont mistake this as me supporting existing legislation and processes).

I believe equality of opportunity should be funded invountarily; it's something we should all contribute to, but left to our own devices we wouldnt [in my opinion].

thegreekdog wrote:That's a gigantic question for which you'll probably get a million different answers.

My basic argument is that the government has no business preparing children for having a decent start.

And my argument would be that a neutral body who is funded involuntarily such as a central government is the only entity capable of ensuring it happens. (please dont mistake this as me supporting existing legislation and processes).

I believe equality of opportunity should be funded invountarily; it's something we should all contribute to, but left to our own devices we wouldnt [in my opinion].

My response would be that either (a) children should be cared for by the state until they are of adult age or (b) people will take advantage of your system (like they do now!).

To put it bluntly, we've had a public education system in the United States since the 1960s or thereabouts, have poured billions of dollars in increasing increments into that system and are now producing worse students. So, is it safe to say government doesn't do a good job of raising children when parents don't do a good job either? This is an interesting thing that gets ignored a lot, but there are a lot of federal social programs that work (in that less people are on it now than before). There are others that don't work for the opposite reason. As an aside, the Repocrats never mention these things because if the programs are not working, we would want the funding gone and if programs were working we wouldn't want to put more money in.

Metsfanmax wrote:rather than (admittedly, passively) encouraging couples to have babies that they can't support.

The government's encouragement of procreation is not a passive activity. There are direct tax subsidies for having children. While my income has increased, my tax burden has decreased substantially since we started having children.

Sure, but the government's encouragement of procreation through the withholding of contraception is a passive activity, which is what I was actually talking about in my comment.

Wait... the government is withholding contraceptives? Since when?

Ironically, if you have money.. you are free not to have children. If you need help for healthcare, either get it through your employer or through a goverment program, then you don't.

Yet... haven't several here essentially argued that people with money are the ones who should be having the kids?

$1 Trillion Obamacare Tax Hike Hitting on Jan. 1On January 1, regardless of the outcome of fiscal cliff negotiations, Americans will be hit with a $1 trillion Obamacare tax hike.

Obamacare contains twenty new or higher taxes. Five of the taxes hit for the first time on January 1. In total, Americans face a net $1 trillion tax hike for the years 2013-2022, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The five major Obamacare taxes taking effect on January 1 are as follows:

The Obamacare Medical Device Tax: Medical device manufacturers employ 409,000 people in 12,000 plants across the country. Obamacare imposes a new 2.3 percent excise tax on gross sales – even if the company does not earn a profit in a given year. In addition to killing small business jobs and impacting research and development budgets, this will increase the cost of your health care – making everything from pacemakers to artificial hips more expensive.

The Obamacare Flex Account Tax: The 30-35 million Americans who use a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account (FSA) at work to pay for their family’s basic medical needs will face a new government cap of $2500. This will squeeze $13 billion of tax money from Americans over the next ten years. (Currently, the accounts are unlimited under federal law, though employers are allowed to set a cap.)

There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are several million families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. This Obamacare tax provision will limit the options available to these families.

The Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income: This is a new, 3.8 percentage point surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income:

Capital Gains

Dividends

Other*

2012

15%

15%

35%

2013+ (current law)

23.8%

43.4%

43.4%

The table above also incorporates the scheduled hike in the capital gains rate from 15 to 20 percent, and the scheduled hike in dividends rate from 15 to 39.6 percent.

The Obamacare “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deductions: Currently, those Americans facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). This tax increase imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. By limiting this deduction, Obamacare widens the net of taxable income for the sickest Americans. This tax provision will most harm near retirees and those with modest incomes but high medical bills.

The Obamacare Medicare Payroll Tax Hike: The Medicare payroll tax is currently 2.9 percent on all wages and self-employment profits. Under this tax hike, wages and profits exceeding $200,000 ($250,000 in the case of married couples) will face a 3.8 percent rate instead. This is a direct marginal income tax hike on small business owners, who are liable for self-employment tax in most cases. The table below compares current law vs. the Obamacare Medicare Payroll Tax Hike: